View Full Version : Nikon D300 and D3 previews
jaebles
23-Aug-07, 02:29pm
Just came live about half an hour ago.
Heads up here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp
and here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp
Also some new Nikkor glass:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082311nikonafs14-24-70lenses.asp
The 24-70 looks like a nice piece of kit.
d3 looks like an awesome bit of kit. on paper it looks to be the perfect competitor to canons latest offerings. a good compromise between the features of a 1ds or 1d.
and a 14-24 f/2.8 is quite an achievement especially considering how compact it looks.
beagle2
23-Aug-07, 04:25pm
Nice eye candy. I'm most impressed by 14 bit lossless compressed RAW. WTF do you do with 51 AF points?
Nice eye candy. I'm most impressed by 14 bit lossless compressed RAW. WTF do you do with 51 AF points?
brag that you have 2 more points than canon users?
im surprised it doesnt have super cool mega awesome sensor cleaning/dust resistant features. unless i missed that.
Christ, did it just say ISO 25600?!?!?!?! I get noisy with my *istDL at 1600!
Wow, this is going to be one hell of a race :D
beagle2
24-Aug-07, 12:39pm
Christ, did it just say ISO 25600?!?!?!?! I get noisy with my *istDL at 1600!
so that would make 4 stops difference 1600 -> 25600 + up to 3 stops difference if you add a VR lens. 7 stops total - that's a whole dynamic range! Lots of noise no doubt but shoot at 12MP then bicubic resample down and noise ninja to the hilt and you'd get something very reasonable for the web I expect.
brag that you have 2 more points than canon users?
im surprised it doesnt have super cool mega awesome sensor cleaning/dust resistant features. unless i missed that.
with that number of AF points it is starting to sound like the megapickle debarcle. I suppose they're moving towards the whole frame being used for focus in the same way that the whole frame (more or less) is used for metering.
I think it did say something like cleaning assist somewhere.
Both have cleaning stuff, read the dpreview stuff. Also, the new VR is actually 4 stops, so it's 8 stops difference :D The interesting things for me will be:
If the prices on the Conan (yes, conan) stuff shifts, as they're now copping some heat for the first time in a while
If we start seeing more big black lenses at sports events
How good the noise is at 25600
How good the AF is with the 15 points, in terms of speed and accuracy. I do agree that this is starting to be a bit like the pickles debate, but if Nikon have pulled out something that focuses fast and sharp and performs well at high ISO, and are producing it cheaper than the canon equivalent (this is D3 vs 1DmkIII) then Canon may have a big fight on their hands for the pro sport and gig market. This I can see as only for the good, as they'll be upgrading their stuff and making it cheaper for the pros and, hopefully the consumer as well.
How long people will spend arguing over which is better before turning speculation to the 50D/D300s ;D
I'm still thinking I'll probably be getting a 40D at the end of the year, but it just became a lot more difficult to decide. I think the lure of eventual L-series glass is just too big, that stuff is just sooo purdy.
^ every 35mm digi released is aimed at the consumer market. the pros either have to go large or medium digi or deal with what they get at 35mm
it must be fate that i stay with Nikon as i have been contemplating for a long time that i switch to canon and more so earlier this week with the announcement of the 1dsmk3 and would've done so with the advent of a 5d2. but with the announcement of the d3 and d300, i will now definitely stay with Nikon. the d3 with the announcement of it being full frame absolutely stunned me; i had to rub my eyes! both the d3 and d300 specs are incredible!
the 24-70mm lens is what i've been waiting for (although no VR) and no doubt be an awesome piece of glass. what i'm really waiting for though is the d3x with at least a 20mp so that it'll kill the 1dsmk3 ;)
thank you Nikon for restoring my faith within a short amount of time!
^ every 35mm digi released is aimed at the consumer market. the pros either have to go large or medium digi or deal with what they get at 35mm
I totally, completely and categorically disagree with this. Find me the masses of sports photographers using LF or MF at the footy, the soccer, the olmypics etc. They're using pro level 35mm DSLRs, such as the canon 1D series and the nikon D<x> cameras, and canon and nikon make, price and sell these cameras to professional specifications.
I'm not saying that if you have one of these you are a professional (you might just be rich) and I'm not saying that if you don't have one of these you're not a professional (a lot of wedding pros use a 5D) but to say that there is nothing in the 35mm range that falls into the professional category is IMAO ludicrous.
Hobietje
25-Aug-07, 01:24pm
I'm soo tempted by the D3, it sounds fantastic, though a 'bit' pricy... and I like their new lens collection. I have the 70-200mm VR and it's a beautiful piece of work so I can only imagine what these new tele lenses are like... I was contemplating getting the 17-35mm f/2.8 but I might have to wait and see what comes of these new 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses and get them instead...
I totally, completely and categorically disagree with this. Find me the masses of sports photographers using LF or MF at the footy, the soccer, the olmypics etc. They're using pro level 35mm DSLRs, such as the canon 1D series and the nikon D<x> cameras, and canon and nikon make, price and sell these cameras to professional specifications.
I'm not saying that if you have one of these you are a professional (you might just be rich) and I'm not saying that if you don't have one of these you're not a professional (a lot of wedding pros use a 5D) but to say that there is nothing in the 35mm range that falls into the professional category is IMAO ludicrous.
Call me a snob but I don't consider sports photographers pros. Nor wedding photographers for that matter. Sure theyre getting paid, but theyre not in the same league as the average commercial photographer (with a small number of exceptions who dabble in both.) And wedding photographers dont count, they are dead on the inside.
However, I do understand that the 1d and dx series might be acceptable in some commercial circumstances but they do not enable a present day commercial photographer to meet every clients brief. For exapmle, last week I was at a shoot where the final image size was 1m x 4m. This HAD to be shot be done on medium format digi (H2 with p25 back in this case) according to both the clients and photog. He specifically mentioned that his 1DsmkII would not have been acceptable at that size.
So maybe your right, some 'pros' can get away without medium digi but to funciton properly and meet all possible client needs I think it is a requirement.
Having said all this I just bought a 5d and am more than happy with it.
Professional - adjective
1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
I'm sorry, but to rule out photojournalists from being pro photographers just seems silly. If someone makes their living capturing images then that is their profession, then they are professional photographers. It is true that they don't need to get artistic shots *as much* as they are usually documenting an event rather than trying to make something sale-able (it's hard to get a shot of a politician in a press conference and make it artistic while still meeting editorial standards), but they still have to successfully capture images which are the source of their income.
I agree that some wedding photographers are soulless, but they're usually people who only work on the weekends and have day jobs during the week. Proper wedding professionals have to work for extended periods under super-high pressure and be able to do group and individual photography, artistic stuff, high key, colour and b+w, candid and staged and more. If they are good enough to earn a living from that and that alone then they meet the definition of professional in both the dictionary's and my books.
The 1DsMkIII (note, III not II) pretty much hits medium format anyway, the only difference is the sensor size rather than resolution (21.1mega pickles vs for example the 22 mega pickle 'medium format' mamiya ZD).
5D is an excellent camera, waiting for the 40D tests before I decide.
okay. the difference as i see it is in the lighting. reportage photographers are far less likely to build light. sure, the might whack in sum fill flash or reflected fill, or maybe even a little bit of highly ratiod key light, but nowhere near the extent of the average commercial photog. again, for example, last week i was on a shoot where the photog sed just over 20 lights to light 1 interior shot. and fk me it looked sweet!
mkIII is getting close, but there are still a few issues. i.e. the lenses available simply arent good enough for that res. whereas lenses for say a blad are still amazing.
Ahhhh, now we're coming to it. Yes, there can be a big difference in the skill sets of professional photographers, but that's only to be expected. It's like the difference between a ballet dancer and a breakdancer, both of them are professionals but they specialise in different aspects of the same discipline.
only commercial photography is more skillfull than reportge. no questions. the knowledge required behind it is 10 fold. or am i just being a prick? haha
Don't worry, this is ITM. If you're not a prick, you don't make an impact :D
So, D3 vs 1DMkIII: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos1dmkiii%2Cnikon_d3&show=all
For the price difference (that being none), I'm not seeing the quality difference that makes the 1DIII stomp the D3 that some canon people have been claiming exists. I mean, the D3 can probably autofocus...
only commercial photography is more skillfull than reportge. no questions. the knowledge required behind it is 10 fold. or am i just being a prick? haha
thats pretty ignorant i must say. i see the talent and knowledge required by commercial/fashion/whatever photographers to control lighting in a studio/location environment. i also see the talent and knowledge required in reportage to use the light given to you in a fast paced environment where a composition can come from the drop of a hat, not in a controlled environment where you have plenty of time to light and frame your subject.
to say that a 5 figure 35mm dslr BODY is aimed at the consumer, not professional market is just fucking retarded :rainman:
Hobietje
28-Aug-07, 12:08am
I'm not seeing the quality difference that makes the 1DIII stomp the D3 that some canon people have been claiming exists.
I agree, there definitly isn't much difference between the two and I'd even say D3 stomps canon with the exception of the ISO perhaps... definitly not worth considering switching to canon if you ask me...
thats pretty ignorant i must say. i see the talent and knowledge required by commercial/fashion/whatever photographers to control lighting in a studio/location environment. i also see the talent and knowledge required in reportage to use the light given to you in a fast paced environment where a composition can come from the drop of a hat, not in a controlled environment where you have plenty of time to light and frame your subject.
to say that a 5 figure 35mm dslr BODY is aimed at the consumer, not professional market is just fucking retarded :rainman:
dude, only the knowledge of light can allow you to do really cool shit with framing. framing is just a tool, it can be learnt easily whereas lighting is much, much harder to do properly.
thats funny because every one of my lectuers will agree that even top of the line dslrs are aimed at the consumer market. some peole have a lot of cash. + the technology and research gets pumped into the middle area in terms of price range so as to maximise profit causing the high end stuff to progress more slowly.
dude, only the knowledge of light can allow you to do really cool shit with framing. framing is just a tool, it can be learnt easily whereas lighting is much, much harder to do properly.
thats funny because every one of my lectuers will agree that even top of the line dslrs are aimed at the consumer market. some peole have a lot of cash. + the technology and research gets pumped into the middle area in terms of price range so as to maximise profit causing the high end stuff to progress more slowly.
and what subjects would they be lecturing? let me guess... studio lighting?
its very simple. people who earn a living from photography are professionals. photography is their profession. if a $12,000 1ds mk3 is a consumer product because 'some people have a lot of cash' then so to a $50,000 h3d could also be considered a consumer product because again, 'some people have a lot of cash'. and guess what, consumers do buy them. an enthusiest recently bought a h3d through my office. by your logic that would have to make it a consumer product, wouldnt it? face it, the vast majority of top end dslr systems are in the hands of working photographers.
as for high end stuff progressing slowly, what a load of crap. not so long ago digital medium format was barely worth considering. theyve already hit near perfection with products like the h3d, it will only progress slowly now because theres not really much to improve on.
im not guna waste my time on anymore long winded discussions with people who have a different opinion on this.
but, the lecturer who has said this numerous times is the adobe correspondent for australia and is also one of the main equipment testers for sony. hes been using digital cameras since the days when you had to carry a huge block around with you just for the memory. he has a shitload more expertise than either of us, and what ive said is simply his words repeated.
camerawarehouse
30-Aug-07, 09:04am
I think you're mixing up 3 things - being a professional photographer, being a good photographer and creating good photographs - the 3 are not the same.
Being a *professional photographer* (creating income by taking photographs) doesn't depend on what equipment you have. You could use a $150 Kodak if you're taking passport photos, for example. A good professional should spend as little money as possible to achieve the required photograph.
A *good photographer* will take the best photograph possible under whatever conditions they are in. This could be in a studio, where you're in control of the environment, or on a sports field in torrential rain and bad light. The cashed-up consumers you're talking about could be awesome photographers, but don't need the cash enough to go pro.
Whether you create a *good photograph* or not is another matter, and for professionals, often the best indicator is whether someone pays you for it or not!
what ive said is simply his words repeated.
atleast you freely admit that you dont have the intelligence to form your own opinion and have simply repeated someone elses. good for you :thumb:
^^ point taken.
^ thats very witty of you, dickhead. maybe i dont have such a large ego that i actually realise its not about opinions, but facts from people who know what they are talking about because they are directly involved in what we are discussing.
^^ point taken.
^ thats very witty of you, dickhead. maybe i dont have such a large ego that i actually realise its not about opinions, but facts from people who know what they are talking about because they are directly involved in what we are discussing.
facts? would you like to perhaps present atleast one fact? nevermind, i concede. youre clearly right, its just that i didn't know that lecturing in studio lighting/photography automatically qualified someone to determine what is/isn't a consumer/professional product. my bad.
So, going back to the topic, do you think the D300 is worth the extra they're charging over the 40D? Assume you currently have a P+S so no brand loyalty.
camerawarehouse
31-Aug-07, 11:29am
Klips, quick run-down of the specs...40d v D300 - winner in ()
Resolution (MP): 10.1 v 12.3 (Nikon)
Sensor size: 22.2x14.8 v 23.6x15.8 (Nikon)
ISO: 100-3200 v 100-3200 (draw)
LCD viewer: 7.5cm v 7.5cm (poss. higher resolution on Nikon?)
AF points: 9 v 51 (err...Nikon?)
Burst: 6.5fps (70 shots max.) v 6fps or 8fps w/ battery grip or AC power (draw)
Viewfinder: 95% coverage v 100% coverage (Nikon)
Weight: 740g v 825g (Canon)
We don't know what the price difference is going to be in Aus, yet (it doesn't always translate directly from US prices), but it's obvious that the Nikon is the better spec'd camera. That's not to say that the Canon is a bad camera, of course, and the Nikon is quite heavy in comparison. The 40D would be a good option if you want to save a few $$, aren't a weightlifter in your spare time and don't need 51-point AF. If you want the best camera in the mid- to high-prosumer range and you don't mind paying a bit more for it, the D300 is the way to go.
Aus prices available in October...delivery in November, according to Nikon.
The ISO winner will be determined for me by who has better performance at 100 and 1600. 3200 should be a last resort, but 100 should be used frequently and 1600 should be useable for gigs and stuff (hell, I can't go above 400 without it getting noisy, stupid shitty pentax sensor). AF will be on which focuses faster and more accurately in a variety of conditions, and the canon has 9 cross types to the nikon's 50 horizontal + 1 cross, and are also spread wider (I think, for both of these. correct me if I'm wrong).
Aside from this, the D300 is placed to split the gap between the 40D and the 1D3 which is an excellent idea. Nikon have said "Fuck competing with Canon, we're just going to place shit where we think people want it and at a price they'll want it at". Now that nikon are establishing themselves as good for sports as well as just having nice colours (those fast, VR, super-tele primes made me hard) (no really, if you're strong enough you can hand-hold at 600mm at f4 and 1/125) they just need to start undoing the amazing marketing job that Canon has done in convincing the world that only leica glass in as good as those lovely ones with the red ring around them.A friend who works in a camera store put it to me that "A Nikon owner knows an expensive lens by the price tag, but the world knows it by a red ring and the letter 'L' ". I look forward to it :D
PS: can you tell I'm procrastinating? I'm meant to be doing my law assignment
camerawarehouse
31-Aug-07, 03:47pm
D300 is 15 cross-type AF; ISO is 100-1600 standard for Canon, with 3200 available with some tweakery; D300 is 200-3200 standard with 100 and 6400 available with more tweakery.
Fortunately, it won't be long before we can get our hands on a 40D at least and see if it's any good. Any D300 we get will be sold long before they arrive, I suspect, but maybe a kind person will open it up in the store for us to drool over.
Unfortunately, Canon has such a high opinion of their L lenses that they restrict their sale to only certain 'professional' retailers. This simply encourages the grey import market, IMHO. Nikon had a similar program but binned it.
The 40D is excellent in-store, but that's not a real test IMO. I too want to get it and a D300 and take them both for a day and night trip, take 1000 photos which each and then use them to make a *real* comparison. Shame it's not going to happen :(
There's three suppliers of L series lenses within 20 minutes cycle of my place, so that's not an issue for me.
camerawarehouse
31-Aug-07, 04:54pm
That's the kind of test I'd love to be able to arrange with the manuf's, but I think they'd both be too scared to go head-to-head like that.
I'm hoping Phil Askey does it anyway, that would be awesome :D Get third party lenses (to avoid claims of one lens being 'better') in a range from ridiculously wide to super-tele and then go out and shoot.
Oh man, we have to get a petition for that on DPReview once the D300 is out.
camerawarehouse
12-Sep-07, 09:38am
Got to see these two new beasts last night at the Nikon product launch in Sydney. I say 'see' but they were actually tripod-mounted on the terrace, outside...at nighttime...so I couldn't actually 'see' anything.
One was pointed at the harbour bridge, the other at the opera house. The D3 had what I think was the 600mm f/4 VR lens attached and I challenge any camera not to look awesome under those conditions (talk about playing to your strengths!).
No pricing until November :( but we were told that the D300 will come in under $3k. How much under? Dunno, but probably not a lot!
In the meantime, the D200 and D2Xs remain available and will do so until Xmas. The D200 dropped in price a little while ago and I got one last week. Totally, totally in love with it. So, if you don't want to wait until November/December for the D300 (when prices will be inflated and supply limited anyway), I heartily recommend the D200 instead. Unless you need 51 area AF, or an extra couple of fps burst, you're not giving much away and saving a heap on money.
If you have money to burn, by the D2Xs now and the D3 in December!
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.